Cross-posted from TruthDig.com.
After days of protests over reform, the Obama administration has, in fact, created a change that many Americans can now see and feel. The new law, though imperfect, represents progress in a new direction. However, it seems that for this step forward some Americans have taken two steps back.
The first step back took the form of angry racist and homophobic rhetoric aimed at Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., on March 20. Lewis was called a "nigger" and Frank was called a "faggot," as tea party protesters shouted "Kill the bill." Lewis recalled his experiences as a civil rights activist, saying, "It reminded me of the '60s. It was a lot of downright hate and anger and people being downright mean." Frank was unsurprised but "disappointed" by the incivility. In a related incident, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, stood on a balcony during the protests and slapped a picture of Nancy Pelosi's face. Should we be surprised and disappointed? Probably not. We've seen this kind of action before: In 1994, then-first lady Hillary Clinton was burned in effigy by Kentuckians who were against reform.
The second step back came as a fax was sent to Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., Wednesday with a drawing of a noose and gallows, labeled "Bart (SS) Stupak." Stupak is not alone. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., reported that he has received several faxes of nooses on gallows along with letters filled with racial slurs. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., was sent a package containing a menacing letter and a white powder. These symbolic threats have forced many to ask for an acknowledgment of these actions from the GOP and tea party spokespeople -- not to mention the sort of strong condemnation they require. Many more are asking what race and sexual orientation have to do with it. The answer? A great deal.
Even without a public or single-payer option, the reform law represents a disruption of hierarchy, a need for some extremists to place blame and an important form of identification for all Americans. By extending what has been a privilege of only those who work or can pay independently to roughly 40 million "others" as a right, the health care reform law has flattened out a social hierarchy that enables some Americans to feel and behave as though they are superior to others or that they have done something, other than merely being alive, that earns them the privilege of proper health care. Those who feel superior may say, "I or my company can pay for health care, therefore I am." But now that the reform bill has become law, many more Americans can say, "I am, therefore I have the right to affordable health care." By making health care available to more people, those who believe it's a privilege they've earned are now placed on the same hierarchical rung as others who they believe don't deserve or haven't earned it.
Tied to this sense of hierarchy and privilege is the impulse to place blame. Those who have been fiercely protesting against health care reform may not necessarily see anything wrong with the former status quo. As a result, many, like Newt Gingrich, argue that the U.S. government is guilty of stepping into an arena in which it does not belong, and their response is "hands off my health care." Some planned to make this position personal by protesting this weekend at the home of Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio, who has already seen a photograph of his children used in an ad published by reform opponents.
And there's more fault-finding to go around. Countering Barack Obama's inclusive slogan "Yes we can" is House Minority Leader John Boehner's divisive and condescending response, "Hell no you can't." The intent is to make Democrats pay for violating the sanctity of a system that supposedly wasn't broken and to punish the government for overstepping its bounds. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele echoed this sentiment when he told Fox News that it's time to start "getting Nancy [Pelosi] ready for the firing line." Sarah Palin also did her part to raise the rhetorical stakes, telling her Twitter followers, "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!' " Palin continued by referring her supporters to her Facebook page, where she once again makes use of gun imagery and produces a list of 20 potentially vulnerable pro-reform Democrats in Congress. Coincidentally, angry health care reform opponents associated with the Western Rifle Shooters Association are planning an open arms rally to "Restore the Constitution" at Fort Hunt and Gravelly Point parks in Virginia. This rally is scheduled to take place April 19, the anniversary of both the Waco siege and the Oklahoma City domestic terrorist attack.
Finally, there's the issue of identification. Those who are hurling hateful words, drawing hateful pictures and carrying deadly weapons are also implicitly sending the message that homosexuals and people of color should not be able to walk around feeling safe. Precisely because our president is multiracial the underlying fear is that Obama is out to empower minorities to the point of discriminating against white heterosexuals. Thus, for extremist health care reform opponents the mere presence of people of color and homosexuals with political clout poses a threat--hence the threats of violence coming from the extremes. The threats are real and have been taken to heart by at least 10 members of Congress who have now requested increased security.
So, what should be done? It seems that our current health care debate is making the choice clear. We can seek to eliminate those Americans who do not conform to the status quo--whether actively, through acts of violence and intimidation, or passively, by not giving them access to care that could save or prolong their lives. Or, we can actually create a more perfect union that includes, empowers and involves more Americans and work on healing some old and stubborn scars in our nation's constitution.
Follow Marcia Dawkins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/drdawkins09
As Obama's health care overhaul gets moving, loopholes threaten to undermine the legislation. Despite reports that the bill bans a controversial practice where insurers retroactively cancel health coverage of patients, the law hasn't changed.
Ari Rabin-Havt: "I'd Even Vote For a Communist Right Now": My Trip to the Showdown in Searchlight
The Tea Party protesters were no longer focusing on issues (such as health care), but rather turning their attention to the election of conservative candidates. The message was clear: they must work to defeat Democrats in November.
He's already sold his soul to the Health Insurance Companies!
The opposition feels this version of reform is destroying our freedom to choose our own actions. No longer can people choose how they pay for health care, but now they must endorse the broken health insurance system. No longer can people able to afford it use their own money to negotiate their own deals with health care providers, but instead we all are told the system that has failed so terribly must be entrusted with virtually unlimited power.
The opposition also feels this is destroying capitalism itself. An argument could be made that GM and Chrysler, the many banks, AIG, and Fannie and Freddie needed government intervention due to the potential fallout of their collapse in a severe recession, but the same cannot be said about health insurers. By telling business that failure will be rewarded, people feel our entire economic system is being endangered. We're telling the greedy that their greed will be rewarded whether it leads to success or failure for the rest of us.
So please don't imply opponents are against progress. Many of us are for progress, but oppose sacrificing the entire country's progress for a single issue for a small minority. Health care reform is desperately needed, just not the version we got.
You do your position a disservice by continuing to overpromise the benefits of this bill. "The Obama administration has, in fact, created a change that many Americans can now see and feel." How exactly did it do this when the bill hasn't been implemented and most of the provisions that matter most won't be enacted for several years? I know Democrats that support this travesty of a bill are giddy because they passed something, but lets be honest and realistic about the benefits. They're very minor and intangible, while the costs are large and very tangible. Most of the benefits don't even accrue until 4 years from now. You "help" 32 million not 40 million and that is done by forcing them to buy a defective product that insures them in name only. Adults do not get pre-existing condition protection until 2014 for some weird reason and people get punished for getting "too much" insurance. The only positives were the expansion of Medicaid, SCHIP, and the increased funding for community health centers. Everything else was set up to be gamed like crazy by the insurers. I don't support this bill because it's a terrible defective product, much like the insurance it forces everyone to buy (which I believe will be found unconstitutional). Even so, a friendly word of advice: Over-promising and under-delivering is a sure strategy for failure. I'd stick to publicizing the undeniably positive things in this bill, not the ones with caveats.
The trick would be to reduce the anxieties felt by the 'sheep', which would serve to separate them from the likes of Palin, Armey, and so on. I don't really know how to do that on a large scale, but on the small scale I've done what I can by seeing to it that my elderly parents confine their attention to the fact that the new reform law closes the doughnut hole. So far they're much too busy working out how reform is going to benefit them on this one subject that they so far are forgetting how terrified they're supposed to be about it all.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html
In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."
He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.
This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth?